Venkat Pulla[1]
‘We spent all our time
trying to get the policy right, we should have spent more time trying to get
the politics right’ (Obama, 2012)
Abstract:
Any discussion around
India’s Social Policy, Social Welfare
and Social Development ought to be laid in the context of India’s sixty years
of planning history. In this critical essay, I explore the views and treatise
of octogenarian Shankar Pathak on social welfare policies and development of
the poor in India. In those sixty years
of planning, India has certainly made strides, such as producing some
billionaires that enter into who’s who list compiled by Forbes, alongside its
poor making world’s record officially included into the top ten poor nations. India’s
situation can be aptly captured and surmised by borrowing the famous saying of
American Political Economist ‘doing better but feeling worse’ ( Wildavsky,
1977, pp 105), this paper examines Pathak’s (2013) views on social policy,
welfare and social development in India and to an extent his views on social
work profession in India.
Pathak, S,
(2013), Social Policy Social Welfare and Social Development, Niruta
Publications, Bangalore, India, ISBN
Introduction
I have spent some 38 years
in India and even if I miss reflecting on my innings until my teenage, I
vividly remember about my growing awareness of two rather pervasive phenomena
in the Indian society i.e. a hierarchical structure and abundance of stark
inequalities amongst people. I used to ask my teachers in about these two
major concerns. Overtime I came into social work and realized that these two giant
obstacles will stretch the limits of the profession. Historians could see this being an Indian
characteristic for centuries. It is this pathological condition that worried
the Delhi school of social work academic Shankar Pathak ( 2013) who worked his guts out in the last one year
to update some of his previous writings
originally written in 1979-1987 period and subsequently added his reflections on the
current plagues and aliments in India. What I take from reading these fascinating essays
is that clearly there are many challenges in India: For the government, for the
welfare sector and its people when it comes to poverty alleviation.
The task of reviewing sixty
years of official economic and development planning in India from the lens of
social work constitutes a review of how good, bad, ugly and pervasive this commitment has been towards looking after the poorer and
vulnerable sections in the Indian society.
Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi seems to have declared his vision to
see that ‘poverty, as we have known it, will be a thing of the past. Every
village will be electrified, assured of clean drinking water and adequate
health services. Education will be available to every child’ (Gandhi, Rajiv,
1987, quoted in Pathak, 2013) A couple of years ago Barak Obama was speaking on
his health reform and he said that ‘We
spent all our time trying to get the policy right, we should have spent more
time trying to get the politics right’ I
am reminded of this today in the context of the speed at which the national
government in India wants to speed up the food security bill or the explicit
abhorrence it showed towards the emerging anti corruption agendas.
Poverty
and Social Work
Pathak nearly all his life
analyzed the profession’s reach and often questioned social work’s ‘apolitical’
stance. In his writings Pathak clearly indicates his yearning for social work
to take on the role of an ‘ideologist and a social actionist’. Pathak, with
great admiration relates to a story of a missionary in Travancore, South India.
He says, in the last century, the untouchables were not allowed to use the
public roads, visit offices and were denied education in schools and refused
employment- one missionary according to Pathak described himself as ‘political
missionary and declared that if we want to work for social justice, we have to
be political missionaries There is no alternative’ (Pathak, 2013, p196)
Pathak writes further:
‘whatever be
the phrase- social justice, distributive justice, redistributive justice- the
underlying idea is fairness by man to fellow human beings based on the principle
of equality – social, political and economic’. It implies undoing the wrongs
done to segments of population for decades and even centuries by those who had
the power to take the lion’s share of all social resources including human
dignity. It implies compassion, care and concern for the deprived and the
exploited’ (Pathak, 2013 p.196)
Indian social work history
has chunks about social reformers that India had and about the causes that they
tried to deal with in those times. But as we tease those causes it becomes
clear that a great number of them actually dealt with poverty. ‘While the
heritage seems to be the source of inspiration for modern social workers’
Pathak, writes, ‘who unlike those early leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy,
M.G.Ranade, and Keshab Chandra Sen,
failed to devote any attention to the miseries of the poor, let alone make
poverty the main focus of social work’ (Pathak, 2013, p 135) Historically social reform and social work in
the industrially advances countries of the west originated around the problem
of mass poverty , following industrial revolution. Thus social work and social
workers retained some kind of an attachment of link with poverty as part of
their heritage. Pathak writes:
‘As is well
known, social reform movement in India had a different beginning. Certainly,
the circumstances were not similar. As a result, the social workers in India
have not felt it necessary even to maintain a tenuous link with the problem of
poverty….If they ( social workers) were concerned with the poor as part of
their work, it is because they had no choice about it’(Pathak, 2013, p
135)
Pathak expresses his
unhappiness and contempt at the growing corruption, lack of transparency,
irresponsible leadership, and opportunist political sloganism, misguided and
ill guided ambitions amidst plenty of opportunity to right every wrong in the
country called India. Pathak does see a ray of hope in the profession of social
work but wishes that it was able to produce a cadre that could Sheppard and
lead poverty alleviation. It is quite debatable in this context to see where
Indian social work is heading. It is possible that it is producing a level of
clerical functionaries similar to many western countries that sit and
administer programmes handed down from the top. Social work consultations also
take place with client communities occasionally over programme and
methodological changes. Social work
appears to be a profession bereft of ideology social action for social
justice. Pathak writes:
‘If we want to work
for social justice, we have to be political missionaries. There is no
alternative. We cannot speak like radials and act like conservatives. That
would be hypocrisy unlimited. I am actively conscious of the fact that the task
is not easy. But a beginning has to be made in all earnestness’ (Pathak, 2013,
p, 196)
Certainly these questions
that Pathak raises are paradoxical in the context of social work philosophy.
World over social work has an espoused commitment for equality and justice but
the profession does not appear to be sensitive to incidences of injustices
committed every day. Be it India, or East Timor, or western nations like
Australia or United Kingdom, - social work professional bear’s eyewitness to
injustice with limited reach and interventions. India needs a range of social
workers. If I may describe them they would fall under the following categories.
social work dreamers and achievers; daring social workers; innovative social
workers; those that can work from within the government and bring change; those
who believe and work on Gandhian lines; social workers who can see the
ecological connections and can articulate them; social workers who work for
LGBT and human rights areas; social workers who work for civil liberties;
social workers who can articulate that all social work is political and lastly
a live wire brand of academics who have practice interests in social work. There
is no other mantra for salvation of social work in India but to start building
such cadres of social workers.
Pathak’s
Approach
For social work academics
that desire a critical appreciation of the more complex economic, public
administration and policy phenomena, a sense of time and modern history of
India, Pathak re-packs in his latest book titled Social Policy, Social Welfare and Social Development (Pathak, 2013) , several anecdotal vignettes from his innings
in social work. Pathak counts three scores of Indian’s planning and development
through a interdisciplinary lens which makes these essays, a must read for
anyone who wants to understand why India is unable to develop or on a more
positive note that the country still has an opportunity to respond to
ameliorating its poverty of its majority
people. Eighty three year old Shankar Pathak has given sixty years of his
thought approximating to the sixty years of planning in this country called
India. Shankar Pathak belongs to the era
of social workers who gave unto themselves the privilege to critically evaluate
the contexts, concerns and the commitments of the state in the area of welfare
with the rigour that the questions deserved. Pathak (2013) raises the
questions: what is the problem? Who owns the problem? Who ought to own the solutions and the final
question are there any policy instruments that can be utlised? Pathak
identifies government action or residual work as a result of state actions,
state legislation, law and its fiscal or monetary allocations as policy
instruments to which he clearly sees the need to add advocacy, and people’s
voices as important instruments. When I use the word advocacy I am talking
about the possible role of social work advocacy in India. Certainly the number
of schools of social work has increased in India in the last six decades and
there are several thousands of non-state actors that work in the welfare sector
which is clearly to be seen as an opportunity. Pathak sees that the definition
of the stake holder is skewed in the Indian arena of planning development as a
result of its handed down policies that do not seem to yield a clear
appreciation of the stakeholder profile. This is despite of years of post
planning and post decision research in India.
Pathak writes:
‘The poor have
always been a happy hunting ground for the politicians, the reformers and the
academicians. This is not surprising. Poverty is good business for some people.
Described as the salt of the earth nineteen centuries ago, the poor today are
known as the wretched of the earth and as the fourth world’ (Pathak, 2013, p,
119)
Do
Bureaucrats Hate Poor?
Interesting fact of history
that Pathak revisits in India relates to poverty of the Indian people that
played a very major part in both unifying the native population as a community
in their struggle against the colonial power and in developing the sense of
nationalism among the elite, thus ‘since 19th century monarchs and
politicians have found it expedient to legitimize their claim to hold power by
an appeal to the poor’ (Pathak, 2013, p, 130). I am fascinated by his candid
but valid observations from his field work days in Rajasthan about how
government bureaucrats viewed the poor. Similar
to Pathak, my own observations confirm that most government bureaucrats hate
the poor. Pathak (2013) says:
“…. Rajasthan
gave me plenty of opportunities to observe the deep hostility of the government
bureaucracy towards the poor. There are of course, sympathetic and dedicated
individuals at all levels of the bureaucracy. But the overall mindset in these
circles strikes me as extremely anti-poor’ (emphasis supplied by Pathak, 2013,
p 200).
In the last 21 years for a
substantial amount of time I worked in state bureaucracies in Australia, and I
can confirm by own observations that hostility towards the poor cuts across all
societies and nations. My observations are qualified by experience of being on
teams that work post disaster in communities to get the families and
communities recover from the impending effects of disaster. Barring social
workers and allied health workers, I have noticed hostility towards the poor as
part of the objective culture of bureaucracy.
India’s poor,
astonishingly, receive mention when the rest of the citizen elites want to
build sky scrapers or beautify the cities. The poor are cleaned out and can be
bulldozed and their houses razed in the wake of city development or road
widening. These people can be banished to the outskirts of the city. Pathak intrigues at the relationship of the
poor with the rest of the population. He finds that the relationship is akin to
the concept of metropolitan –satellite relationship. The elites and the well to
do are the metropolitan keepers of the urban society that can see the relegated
lives of the poor to the untouchable squalors of the cities or rural fringes:
essentially built around the edifice of inequality, exploitation and
dependence. Pathak defines poverty ‘as a
failure of a segment of the population to command essential resources of life’
(2013, p, 134). The poor in the rural front have tales and pathetic sagas of
farmer suicides, farm labour suicides, listlessness and lack of equal
opportunities for education and development constantly causing high rates of
incidence of internally displaced populations that move from one state to the
other in search of livelihood. Pathak,
see the manifestation of anti poor stance of bureaucracy through:
‘Pervasive
tendencies to blame the victims for their own predicament, poor people are
blamed for being lazy, for not sending their children to school, for
squandering their money to drink and so on. In the context of drought relief,
they were constantly accused (against all evidence of being unwilling to take
up employment on relief works’ (Pathak, 2013, p200)
Amita Shah, director of
Gujarat Institute of Development Research, says, “Poverty reduction programmes
must include issues of economic growth, employment generation, socio-spatial
equity, environmental sustainability and political stability within a holistic
framework” ( Shah, A, in Mahapatra,
2011). There is inequality in the efforts made to prevent people from poverty
and get them out of it. The numerous poverty alleviation programmes are
inadequate and insufficient ( Mahapatra, 2011). POVERTY is becoming hereditary
in India, at least for a sizeable population. That is the conclusion derived
from a three-decade tracking of poor households in rural India. A survey by the
Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC), an international association of
researchers and academicians, claims that those who are chronically poor may
pass on poverty to their next generation. What’s more, people residing in
tribal and forested areas are likely to remain poor forever, fomenting violent
conflicts in future. Most of India’s forested districts are already dens of
Naxalites ( Mahapatra, 2011). Of the 29 such programmes studied in the survey,
only nine could prevent people from falling into the poverty trap. Thirteen
could enable escape from poverty and 16 could alleviate chronic poverty. Shashanka Bhide, a senior fellow of the
National Council of Applied Economic Research says that a significant
proportion of non-poor households may fall into poverty while a large
proportion of poor may not manage to escape it ( Mahapatra, 2011).
India’s population,
irrespective of its numbers at any given point of time, will always have nearly
two thirds living in appalling conditions, gutters, and squalor. But they will
of course run the cities relentlessly from the rural environments or tribal
habitats. Politicians occasionally
champion their cause but constantly feed on them and only marginal adjustments
are advanced to those in poverty. The India Chronic Poverty Report about which
Mahapatra ( 2011) wrote came at a time
when the country was awaiting its latest National Sample Survey for estimation
of poverty. On April 21, while unveiling the approach paper to the 12th Five
Year Plan for 2012-17, the Planning Commission disclosed that poverty has
reduced from 37.2 per cent in 2004-05 to 32 per cent in 2009-10. This estimate
is certainly critical for the next Plan and the much debated National Food
Security Law. In the table below we present some select investigations into
Chronic Poverty.
|
Drivers
|
Maintainers
|
Interrupters
|
|
Health Expenditure
|
Poverty
|
Income diversification
|
|
High interest Borrowing
|
Indebtedness
|
Asset accumulation
|
|
Crop Failures
|
Poor healthcare
|
Marketable skills/ linkages
|
|
Natural disasters
|
Loss of productive assets
|
Access to credit
|
|
Loss of productive assets
|
Governance failure
|
Wage increase
|
|
Source: Adapted from
India Chronic Poverty Report (
2011)
|
||
Mahpatra (2011) writes that
India’s Supreme Court ordered the planning commission to explain the basis of coming
up with a percentage of people below-poverty-line (BPL) as being at 36 per
cent. The percentage helps the commission decide the direction of development
programmes and distribution of food grains under the public distribution
system. The apex court’s observation came in the wake of a petition filed by
nonprofit People’s Union for Civil Liberties. The petitioner contended that
adequate food grains are not being given to people living below the poverty
line. Social workers ought to become familiar with this as this probably will
enter into the fundamental rights within the constitution as the Right to Food.
The court also challenged the commission’s estimates of BPL families. “There
cannot be two Indias,” said the apex court while describing the country’s high
economic growth and consistent poverty. “The poverty level is reducing but at a
slow pace,” (Mahapatra, 2011).
Poverty and Democratic
Governance
I am not sure if there is a
commonsense perspective that takes into consideration a normative stake holder
analysis before considering planning for poverty alleviation in India. I suggest that such an approach to stakeholder
analysis ought to have at least two variables: the interests of the stake
holders and if they have any claims and whom do they make these claims? From a social welfare perspective the stake holders
ought to be the clients; provider organizations; government structures in
India; people advocates; non state actors and broader public. Pathak’s
observations (2013) suggests
·
lack
of orchestrated consultation processes
·
lack
of will to build collaborations with people around what they need
·
non
adherence to any collaborative production
·
prejudice
towards the poor in India
·
Incapacity
of understanding what the core problem is and identifying what sort of policy
options are required to deal with it.
Pathak clearly sees that
there are many systemic and social obstacles that require attention before poor
people’s rights and needs become claimable.
He indicates that these firstly relate to the capacity in the Indian
society and secondly to the willingness to develop programmes of amelioration
of the poor. Pathak examines the state governments in West Bengal, and Kerala
(Kerala to a lesser degree) where the communists and communist with other
progressive group led coalition’s ruled for most of the six decades, to argue
that the efficacy of their ideology ought to have had some difference in the
poverty claims of the people. Indian
constitution with its clear directions of principles of state policy allows for
such variance such that the willingness of the state can positively be tempered
by the ideology, resources, ability to respond to local crisis and to pioneer
alternatives for progress and models for other states to follow. Multi-party
coalitions including those coalitions arrived through the making of
post-election alliances, are now the norm in the states as well as at the
centre in India. This means relatively higher support across the board for
smaller political parties with a narrower social and geographical focus (
Mehta,Shepherd, Bhide, Shah and Kumar, 2011).
One new and serious
consequence of the period of frequent elections and multiple coalition
governments has been politicisation of the civil administration. However, the
political situation has become relatively more stable since 1989, and since
2004-05 there have been no mid-term elections or premature endings to a
government at the centre. India has now been led by the same Prime Minister and
political alliance for two consecutive terms ( Mehta, et al , 2011). It is
significant that, since the introduction of economic reforms, several of the
poorest states have been governed by regional political formations or by a
national party that is not in power at the central level. There has also been a
strong wave of identity politics among communities trapped in poverty. This has
included a rise in the prominence of communal issues, formation and split of
the ‘backwardclass’ vote bank, dalit assertion and intensified efforts by women
to attain political space ( Mehta, et
al , 2011).
Tribal political elites in
the Hindi belt have also successfully distanced themselves from others by
demanding their own territories, which in 2000 were carved out of Bihar
(Jharkhand), Uttar Pradesh (Uttarakhand) and Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh). A
rise in the number of non-party networks of democratic people’s movements and
civil society activists has been a prominent feature of this era. These have
challenged the purpose and process of the paradigm shift, using peaceful and
democratic means around issues of livelihoods, agriculture, displacement,
disinvestment, the environment and human rights. Some have also been associated
with the nationwide and sometimes worldwide networks of anti-globalisation
groups (Mehta,et.al ,2011 ).
It appears that good
governance is central to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
as it provides the ‘enabling environment' for the realisation of the MDGs and, in particular, the elimination of poverty
from a social work perspective. The
critical importance of democratic governance in the developing world was
highlighted at the Millennium Summit of 2000, about thirteen years ago where
the world's leaders resolved to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of
law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including the right to development. A consensus was
reached which recognised that improving the quality of democratic institutions
and processes, and managing the changing roles of the state and civil society
in an increasingly globalised world must underpin national efforts to reduce
poverty, sustain the environment, and promote human development. As such good
governance people’s involvement and their inputs into the planning
process. From the human rights
perspective enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved when we
create conditions that guarantee everyone to enjoy his or her economic, social
and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights in
society.
In this regard, I am sure the Indian
constitution has adequate emphasis that stipulates that everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself and of
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control. The eradication of widespread
poverty, including its most persistent forms, and the full enjoyment of
economic, social, cultural rights, civil and political rights remain the
interrelated goals. These very rights
are also expressed as millennium development goals that India ought to be
reminded constantly.
It is my firm belief that
alleviating poverty is a daunting task to be simply left to government;
therefore I suggest that no one section in society is capable of doing anything
with poverty. The paranoia in political
parties is all about showing some of stewardship in servicing the poor. But political elites that sleaze on poverty
and the bureaucrats that programme the political mandates into successive
government programmes and the economists that oversee the planning commission
processes often are left to be content adjusting the ill fated poverty line and
bumping the ‘poor’ up or down. Seriously poverty has to be seen as every body’s
business. It is not largesse thrown at poor or semblance of social
responsibility by some business houses. it is quite in order that we do not
have a Harvard Management School prescription for a solution for poverty. India
has some of the top management schools that produce the managerial mandarins of
the future, several that go away to make the rest of the world a better place
to live. I believe that some deliberate and sustained dialogue needs to take
place between those who can provide good human resources and build an enabling
ethos in the society. India needs to find its own answers for its poverty.
Brilliant graduates and geniuses with an un-ignited social conscience are also
need to be provided opportunities to challenge their skills to find solutions
for India’s welfare. The stakeholders in
poverty alleviation ought to include the poor, the average man on the street,
the business houses, the country’s top management schools, the ruling elites,
social workers and the three tier government agencies to look at an integrated
and holistic approach based on inputs from all stakeholders.
How would India’s postcard
on the MDGs implementation look like? Will it focus on self reliance, prioritising
the goals? Doing MDGs right is actually another
way of meeting and strengthening human rights in India. A need to link the
agenda of development, human rights and extreme poverty, as well as efforts to
empower people living in poverty to participate in decision-making processes on
policies that affect them together are certainly required. If India aims to become a peaceful society its
social work and welfare agenda ought to create institutional and non
institutional apparatus that is ripe for development and free itself from
injustices and human rights abuses.
References
Mahapatra,
R, (2011) Poverty
begets poverty
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/poverty-begets-poverty
Accessed on 25/05/2013
Mehta, AK, Shepherd,A
Bhide, S, Shah, A. and Kumar,A, (2011) India Chronic Poverty Report: Towards
solutions and new compacts in a dynamic context
Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi
Wildavsky,
A, (1977), Doing Better and Feeling Worse: The Political Pathology of Health Policy, Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 1,
pp.
105-123
Accessed: 26/08/2013
[1] Venkat Pulla , MA
– Social Work, URCD, (TISS) PhD, Karnatak, BSc, BJ (Osmania), teaches social
work at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles
Sturt University ,
Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2678, Australia
No comments:
Post a Comment